Math and little more. At least in respect to generally or widely accepted notions and definitions of numeric constants and operations. — Outlander
but i dont know why now — Kizzy
I can see very clear connections with the noumenon here, only that this concept encompasses primary qualities to. So, it is a difference of degrees, not of kind. — Manuel
By the way, I was going to ask you, what do time and space have got to do with consciousness in Kant? — Corvus
I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1
I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind — Corvus
if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities — Corvus
If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus
What is it that you saw in Hegel, despite of his arrogance and lack of shame, that prompted you to invoke this thinker? — Pussycat
Is he? Some people genuinely can't help themselves — Lionino
It is a bit cheap to proclaim that AI will never be able to achieve something or other because it hasn't done so yet — SophistiCat
Leaving it to humans is fatal too. — Lionino
In fact, AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention. — Pantagruel
The resort to Hegel doesn't help either, much more idle talk there. — Pussycat
You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of parrots — Agree-to-Disagree
Again it depends. It is not that simple. — Corvus
It strikes me as a little like wanting one's puppets to come alive. :up: — BC
There's a lot of philosophy about this, it's normally anti-materialists who insist that all materialists must consider consciousness epiphenomenal, actual materialists have a wide range of views on that question. — flannel jesus
As it happens, I can say that it is impossible that everything is a simulation. A simulation needs to be a simulation of something. — Ludwig V
Immediate appearance is before the processing. Object here just indicates that which is processed, depending on which sense is affected. The object for the ear is sound, for the tongue, chemicals, etc. The intellectual system, metaphysically speaking, the brain physically speaking, determines how the object of sense, referred to as sensation, is to be known by that system. :up: — Mww
Really, what a strange thing to ask in a philosophy forum! :brow: — Alkis Piskas
I have nothing to offer on Kant or Hegel, Plato or Aquinas. — BC
the immediate appearance of objects to the senses is a fundamental prerequisite. — Mww
It isn't all idle talk; sometimes it's deadly serious :up: — Count Timothy von Icarus
Dunno, but maybe these days the term has been transitioned onto one of those newfangled language games, where idealism of old is now raw subjectivism, or some other such nonsense. — Mww
If that in which we live exists merely from our ideas of it, why do we have and employ apparatus for the receptivity of various modes of physically real affectations caused by really existent things?
————-
“….. In the transcendental æsthetic we proved that everything intuited in space and time, all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomena, that is, mere representations; and that these, as presented to us—as extended bodies, or as series of changes—have no self-subsistent existence apart from human thought. This doctrine I call Transcendental Idealism….” (A491/B519, in Kemp Smith,1929) — Mww
If it is the case the spatialtemporal world resides in our intelligence, insofar as “it is of our own making”, it’s absurd to then suppose we live in it. — Mww
Eg 2 hydrogen atoms consistently bond with 1 oxygen atom when they can because the stuff that makes these atoms up is defined, at it's very core, to behave in a particular way? — flannel jesus
like the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't go so well with Newtonian physics, then we try to find a logical model for it. — ssu
Nature does not comply to any laws, simply because nature is the laws. — Sir2u
Perhaps discovery and invention are not so opposed as common belief would have it? — Moliere
The most that philosopher Kant claimed about our knowledge of what exists outside us is in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 of the Critique of Pure Reason. He concludes "I am conscious of things outside me". IE, he can neither know what these things are or even why these things are as they are. — RussellA
Well I disagree with this antirealist suggestion, — 180 Proof
Knowing what will happen does not mean we know why it will happen — RussellA
...these concepts are actually the respective world we live in and beyond our world-view and in abstraction from it there is definitely nothing left we could talk about – — Pez
I don't understand what you're saying here. Please reformulate and clarify. — 180 Proof
I tend to look at maunderings of these kinds as a kind of affectation — Ciceronianus
Nature doesn't 'comply' to anything — Vera Mont
Acceptance of the lack of certainty, and the lack of any need for it, alters the conception of natural law. The most interesting view of natural law I've come across is the "evolutionary view" of natural law favored by C.S. Peirce. It happens that the universe evolved the way it did, and as a consequence certain "habits" developed on which we can rely (statistically, but not as absolute laws), but in other respects the universe remains subject to inquiry and undetermined. — Ciceronianus
In other words, "physical laws" are invariants in the structure of physical models which attempt to explain regularities experimentally observed in the physical world. To the degree such models themselves are objective, the "physical laws" derived from them are objective. — 180 Proof
It depends what the expression "the laws of nature" is referring to. It could be referring to "the laws of nature" existing as concepts within the human mind, or it could be referring to the laws of nature existing outside the human mind and independently of the human mind. — RussellA
The "laws of nature" are just descriptions of how things behave. — Michael